I would strongly recommend Mr. James Marks, to anyone in need of a first-class family lawyer.
My baby son was wrongfully removed by his mother from the United Kingdom to Canada. Against the odds, Mr. Marks was successful in quickly securing his safe return back to England, with a Hague Convention application. This was despite the difficulties and unpredictable twists and turns in my case.
Mr. Marks, an incredible judge of character, was able to identify what we were up against with the opposition. James worked closely with me, taking the burden off my
shoulders. I trusted him implicitly. I was still in England when he handled everything, including representing me at the hearings. I was kept updated constantly by email and phone.
He works quickly, yet is extremely meticulous with detail. He is skillful at drafting statements and letters. Mr. Marks has a diplomatic approach and fights for a just cause. He has a competitive spirit, without being inflammatory.
James’ proactive conduct of the case meant I felt in control of the direction of the proceeding, being a step ahead. James utilized his extensive knowledge of the legal system and the rules to out wit the opposition. He is also incredibly well connected.
Mr. Marks was always on hand to assist, and I feel he took a genuine interest in the case, and in me, long after the return was secured. I was amazed at how incredibly hard James worked on my case. He is a highly competent and eminent lawyer.
James is a pleasure to work with. He is skilful, calm, rational and personable, characteristics that are very welcome during the emotional tribulations of a divorce proceeding. James was always resolute in protecting my interests, but at the same time, realistic and careful not to escalate the conflict with the kind of hyperbole one sometimes witnesses in divorce cases. He is meticulous, and possesses a highly effective combination of extensive legal knowledge along with accurate instincts concerning human nature.
James worked in good faith toward a settlement that was fair to all parties. But when it became clear that the opposing counsel was making unrealistic financial demands and seemed intent on prolonging the litigation indefinitely for its own purposes, James knew when to draw the line and move the litigation to court. When the judge ultimately recommended a settlement that was virtually identical to what James had proposed – and which the opposing counsel had strenuously rejected in the past, seeking a far higher settlement – it confirmed my conviction that James was both fair and realistic. I highly recommend him.